Court Showdown: Rakitha Rajapaksha Remanded Till July 17 in High-Stakes Bribery Case
In a significant legal development that has captured national attention, the Colombo Chief Magistrate's Court has ordered Attorney-at-Law Rakitha Nirmala Rajapaksha, son of former Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, to be remanded in custody until July 17. The decision came after a heated court session where prominent President's Counsel Anil de Silva made a compelling legal argument for bail, only to be overruled by the Magistrate on procedural grounds.
The Allegations at the Heart of the Case
The case stems from a dramatic corruption investigation involving an alleged Rs. 120 million bribe linked to organized crime figure Nadun Chinthaka Wickramaratne, better known as "Harak Kata." According to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), the suspects—including Rajapaksha, Samagi Jana Balawegaya organizer Charith Abeysinghe, and former Airport Director Aruna Sri Chathuranga—allegedly solicited a massive bribe in Dubai during 2023.
The prosecution alleges that the suspects initially demanded Rs. 500 million from Harak Kata's wife, Madhushika Madhuwanthi, claiming they could use political and legal influence to secure benefits for the detained organized crime figure. The amount was reportedly reduced to Rs. 200 million, with Rs. 120 million accepted as an advance payment.
The alleged promises included ensuring Harak Kata's safety while in custody, arranging for the cancellation of his detention orders issued by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), preventing his transfer to Boossa High Security Prison, and ultimately securing his release from ongoing criminal investigations and legal proceedings.
The Legal Battle Over Bail
When the case was called before Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama, President's Counsel Anil de Silva, appearing for Rajapaksha, mounted a sophisticated legal challenge. De Silva argued that his client had been charged under the Bribery and Corruption Act, but crucially, the alleged crime took place before the legislation was enacted.
The defense counsel contended that issuing a certificate under the new law for an alleged offense that predates its enactment was legally impermissible. Under this reasoning, de Silva argued that bail should be granted as a matter of right, since the foundational legal basis for detention was procedurally flawed.
However, the Magistrate took a different view of the legal landscape. The court observed that the Director General of CIABOC had issued a certificate under Section 149/1 of the Bribery and Corruption Act in an orderly and proper manner. The Magistrate further noted that according to this certificate, special circumstances are required for the granting of bail.
"The Magistrate observed that no such exceptional circumstances had been placed before court to justify granting bail and therefore declined the oral bail applications," court sources confirmed.
The Constitutional Dimension
The legal argument raised by de Silva touches upon a fundamental constitutional principle. Article 13(6) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka enshrines the protection against retrospective criminal legislation, stating that "no person shall be held guilty of an offence on account of any act or omission which did not, at the time of such act or omission, constitute such an offence".
This provision has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation. In the landmark case of Karunaratne v. The Queen (1973), the Court of Appeal examined a similar argument regarding the retrospective application of bribery laws. The court held that "the prosecution for an offence defined by a statute may be instituted for the first time before a Court which is conferred jurisdiction by a later statute to try and determine such offences".
The court further clarified that "it is open to the Legislature to alter retrospectively the procedure and punishment applicable to certain offences at any time either before or after the commission of an offence". This established jurisprudence appears to have guided the Magistrate's reasoning in the present case.
The Magistrate's Reasoning
The Chief Magistrate was unequivocal in his ruling, stating that based on the material presently before the court, there was no basis to conclude that the suspects should remain in remand custody until the conclusion of the trial. However, the Magistrate emphasized that under Section 149/1, the Director General had properly issued the certificate, and therefore the court had no entitlement to grant bail without exceptional circumstances being established.
Significantly, the Magistrate did leave a door open for the defense, observing that "if exceptional facts and circumstances are presented in support of a future bail application, the court would consider granting bail". The court further directed that the defense is at liberty to file a written bail application, and that the court would allocate time to consider such an application.
Health Concerns Raised by Defense
In addition to the legal arguments, de Silva also raised humanitarian concerns regarding his client's health. The President's Counsel informed the court that Rajapaksha suffers severely from sleep apnea, a condition that causes dangerous breathing interruptions during sleep.
Similarly, counsel for co-accused Charith Abeysinghe presented medical evidence that his client is a heart patient who has already undergone the placement of three stents and requires additional cardiac procedures. The defense also noted that Abeysinghe has developed multiple ailments commonly associated with someone of approximately 60 years of age.
Despite these medical concerns, the Magistrate maintained the remand order, prioritizing the procedural requirements of the Bribery and Corruption Act over compassionate considerations.
Implications and Next Steps
The case now moves forward with all three suspects remanded until July 17. The defense is expected to file a formal written bail application, which would need to demonstrate "exceptional facts and circumstances" to overcome the hurdle of the Section 149 certificate.
Legal observers note that the case carries significant weight, given the high-profile nature of the suspects and the substantial sums involved. The investigation began based on an anonymous complaint received by the Bribery Commission on March 4 of the previous year, suggesting that authorities had been building this case for some time.
The suspects were arrested at three different locations and subsequently brought to the Bribery Commission, where statements were recorded and preliminary court procedures were completed. The prosecution has indicated that further investigations are ongoing.
The remand of Rakitha Rajapaksha and his co-accused until July 17 represents a significant victory for the prosecution in this high-stakes corruption case. The Magistrate's ruling underscores the procedural authority of the Bribery and Corruption Act, despite the constitutional arguments raised regarding retrospective application. As the case progresses, legal experts will be watching closely to see whether the defense can successfully mount a written bail application and whether the substantive allegations will withstand judicial scrutiny. For now, the three suspects remain in custody, with their fate hanging in the balance until the next court appearance.